W3J aspect ratio = ?

Hi all,

Just a little confused regarding the aspect ratio on the W3J. I know it's a 14" widescreen, but is it 16:10 or 15:9?

According to Justin/ProPortable, it is 16:10. ( Link)

According to the new Asus global listing, it is 15:9 per the lettering on the cover. ( Link -- Click on "enlargement" and then the lower right hand corner of the new screen)

Maybe 16:10 marketed as 15:9?

Yeah, it's picking nits. Not gonna change me getting one, just curious if anybody knows the real score.

 

If the W3Js' screen is 1280*768 like i believe it is, then the standard nomenclature is 16:9

 

Abbreviation / Resolution / Aspect Ratio

XGA / 1024x768 / 4:3
SXGA / 1280x1024 / 5:4*
SXGA+ / 1400x1050 / 4:3
UXGA / 1600x1200 / 4:3
"Widescreen" Screens

Abbreviation / Resolution / Aspect Ratio

WXGA / 1280x768 / 5:3**
WXGA / 1280x800 / 8:5 (16:10)*** <------W3J
WXGA+ / 1440x900 / 8:5 (16:10)***
WSXGA+ / 1680x1050 / 8:5 (16:10)***
WUXGA / 1920x1200 / 8:5 (16:10)***

 

Why would they market it differently?

 

The spec sheet lists the screen as 1280 x 768, which would be 15:9, but from the link to ProP above, it was mentioned that all the screens were 16:10 (even if they were marketed as 15:9). So that's where the confusion came in.

 

Why in the name of god does computer displays have the 16:10 ar? The biggest(?) reason to change to widescreen displays is to eliminate the black lines over and under movies, TV, etc. that is shot in 16: 9 format.

This is a major annoyance for me on my W3V. I usually just crop the pictuer a bit when watching videos in full screen but I shouldn't have to.

Anybody know why they didn't use the standard 16:9 aspect ratio?

 

I love the black bars makes me feel like I am in a theatre.

 

I agree, black bars stink. Dunno why they wouldn't use 16:9, but probably has something to do with some standard that was made by committee years ago and has continued to percolate throughout manufacturing since.

God, I hate committees.

 

The biggest reason computer monitors are 16:10 is because 16:9 is unusable for anything but dvd movies....... the reason widescreen is used period is becasue it's a more natural view for the human eye - not to eliminate black bars during movies. As you see below, you'll still have black bars, but they are say a .5" on a 15.4" while they are like triple that on a 15.1"...... The extra height given by the 16:10 ratio is to make normal computer possible..... Anyone with a W3v - mask off a half inch on the top and bottom of your screen and see how much more difficult it becomes to use office apps..... I've done it - it sucks.... I once thought the same thing until I researched it and tested it out in real life..

Now as far as the 15:9 ratio.... that's a new designation for me.... but if you actually work it out, that and a 16:10 come to a 1.6 by 1 ratio....... for 1" up, you go 1.6" over.... so really 15:9 and 16:10 are almost identical... 15:9 is slightly larger - it's more like 1" by 1.7" - that may just be a more acurate way to describe it.

 

It says 15:9 on the picture bottom right click enlargement then bottom right.

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=5&l2=26&l3=0&model=1072&modelmenu=1

 

I see it..... that's not listed on the W3v light bar though... I wonder why they're stressing it now..... It's the SAME screen....... so I don't know what's up.

 

Which begs the question: Why is 16:9 used for DVD movies, and not 16:10 or a different aspect ratio?

 

For movies it's perfect...... for ANYTHING you need to scroll up and down for - it sucks. Last I checked you don't have to scroll a movie.

16:9 is based on the natural viewing angles the human eye can see without moving..... you can basically take everything in - in focus.

On a 4:3 ratio - your eye does a lot of moving and that causes eye strain...... we've all had it.

16:10 is **** close to 16:9 - but you get a little added height to help with the office apps.. There's a reason you don't find a "true" 16:9 computer screen and it has everything to do with what I just said.

 

I didn't know about the natural viewing angle thing. Thanks for the explanation.

 

It's the beauty of phi. Nature proves it all the time.

 

Eh? Phi?

 

Mathematically, phi (1.61.....), has an almost eerily frequent occurrence in nature. The Greeks considered a perfect rectangle (the shape of the Parthenon for example) to be a ratio of 1:1.6. 16:9 isn't exactly phi (it's actually 1.78:1), but it's based off the same principle. Such a ratio looks 'natural' to the eye, and thus become easy for the brain to process.

(A 15:9 ratio on the other hand is 1.67:1)

 

So they choose to almost have the natural viewing angles of the human eye. If it is the natural aspect ratio why not use it? Do win alot of space with 1"? And "business laptops" are available in 4:3 ar.

This problem is somewhat eliminated if you get higher resolution screens anyhow.

The 16:9 aspect ratio was already established. Why, oh why do they create another one almost the same but not quite.. Pointless if you ask me

 

Did study Architecture in school? I would have noted the same thing but thought no one else would have a clue what I was talking about.

 

No I didn't, but I'm a big into the history of classical civilizations (Thucydides, Sophocles, Jugerthine Ware, Rise and Fall, Iliad etc...) Plus, I started school as a physics major, numerical oddities have always intrigued me.

 

Ok... so you don't understand.. either because you choose not to or you can't. Either way I'll try to bring you around..

..... The trend for the future is and will be widescreen. 9 out of 10 LCD TV's are 16:10 and will continue to be that way for compatibility with computers....... The problem is - NO ONE - or at least no one with a clue would buy a 16:9 ratio laptop screen unless all they were going to use it for would be dvds.... and you don't buy a laptop for just dvds.

Let's put it this way...... you say "what's an extra inch?" ... well it's really not about an inch, it's actually less that and more than that, depending on the screen - but it just turns out to be close to an inch of height on a 14" widescreen.. Now, you've got the regular ratio 15" which is the same width as the 14" widescren, with just an extra inch and half of height. That alone is the main reason people by the V6 over the W3 because that extra space is valuable. Now, a 14" widescreen has the height of a 12" regular ratio. Most think that a 12" is the smallest screen that is usable for everday computing. IF you take an inch of height off of a 14" widesreen..... you'll have a screen that is more like a 10" regular ratio height wise..... and a 15" regular ratio width wise.

...... Excel spreadsheets might be awesome on that, but nothing else. To keep the height of the current W3, you'd need something more the width of the Z70va's 15.4" screen to keep an exact 16:9 ratio....... Either way, you're either making the system to small or too big.

 

The compatability with computers is totally non-technical, right? So if we instead used higher resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio we would have more space both height and width wise. Instead of creating a new standard, but I guess it's to late for that..

The currently used resolution that is one "step" higher than 1280x800 is 1440x900(16:10). So why isn't any laptop(I've seen) using a 1440x900 14" screen? If they can cram 1680x1050 pixels in 15,4".. Of course a 1440x810(16:9) 14" screen would have more space heightwise and still be 16:9 and free from pesky black lines.

PS. I didn't think the what's an extra inch remark through and was about to edit it, but you were to quick..

 

You're right...... but then we'd need larger monitors to make it actually "useable"... think about losing an inch of height on the W3 as is... and raising the res to something like a WSXGA..... no one would buy that.

... that's ok though... just bouncing ideas around.

 

"Why in the name of god does computer displays have the 16:10 ar? The biggest(?) reason to change to widescreen displays is to eliminate the black lines over and under movies, TV, etc. that is shot in 16:9 format."

The 16:10 aspect ratio comes from a WXGA 1280x768 screen being capable of displaying a 4:3 XGA 1024x768 without having to remap pixels. Likewise w/ SXGA/WSXGA and UXGA/WUXGA. If you've ever tried to play a game that doesn't support widescreen on a widescreen monitor, you'll see that it fits perfectly from top to bottom, but you'll have black bars on the left and right of the picture.

If you do the math, the 1280x768 screen is 15:9, not 16:9 or 16:10:
1280/15=768/9

"16:9 is unusable for anything but dvd movies....... "

Well, technically, there are very few DVDs in 16:9 format (1.78:1). The closest is 1.85:1, but they will still have a very thin black bar along the top and bottom. Wider ratios, like 2.35:1 (ie, Star Wars), will have thicker black bars. 16:9, however, is perfect for HDTV, because the HDTV specification calls for a 16:9 aspect ratio in any of it's resolutions (720p / 1280x720, 1080i / 1920x1080). Because of this, a 16:9 screen will only 'eliminate' the black bars on TV shows broadcast in widescreen, but not neccessarily all DVDs and movies.

 

I think the screen maybe be 1280 x 800 this time around i could be wrong though.

 

You're absolutely correct...... and technically another reason 16:10 is used - is because 16:9 hasn't been "set" officially by anyone yet....... I think the org. that is HDTV needs to set on a format within the next year or so.. Once that format is set - for TV's anyway..... all you'll get are widescreen tvs and I think by 2008, all cable and sat broadcasts will only be in that format...... but I think there are a lot of people who want the 16:10 because it's also a better format for the computer.... and with the dual use of a lot of screens today, they'd be better off picking one ratio that'll allow companies to make one panel and make every type of programing work perfectly on it.....

 

Actually, for TV broadcast and display, standards have been set and ratified. HDTV is part of the Digital Televison ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committe) Table 3 Standard, originally proposed by the CEA (Consumer Electronics Assoc., link), and adopeted by the FCC in 1996. Congress has set the official cutover from analog (NTSC) to digital (ATSC) televison for Feb. 17th, 2009, at which point any TV that is currently recieving over-the-air (not cable or satellite) analog transmissions will go blank.

Though widescreen is not mandatory in the ATSC standards for the lower 480p resolutions, if you walk into any electronics store (in the US, anyway), you'll see that a majority of the TVs for sale are now widescreen, with most of the LCD-based sets having a 1366x768 resolution, while DLPs are 1280x720, but they're all 16:9 to accept the TV broadcast standard (and yes, they still have black bars when watching many DVDs). LCD monitors that are meant more for computer use, however, continue to have 'odd' (in the TV sense) resolutions and aspect ratios that make it easier to deal with existing computer resolutions. (There's even a 1440 x 900 panel that corresponds to god knows what....)